There have been repeated assertions made by various individuals that if USPA does not adopt a "standardized wingsuit training" program and associated "wingsuit instructor rating" that insurance companies will stop insuring skydiving aircraft.

These repeated assertions are based on an interpretation of one paragraph from an email sent last month to drop zone operators by Jeff Norris, whose company underwrites aircraft insurance for essentially all parachute centers using turbine aircraft.

That paragraph read:

Quote:

"I know there is a lot of activity already with respect to standardizing and regulating wing suit jumping and there is also a lot of resistance to it's regulation. I have heard the argument that USPA does not regulate freeflying or Crew activities so why regulate wing suit jumping? I would argue that those two activities are not causing the same problem that the wing suit jumpers are causing with aircraft collisions. Let's not wait to do something until someone brings down a whole airplane as a result of wing suit jumper ripping the horizontal stabilizer right off the fuselage."

From that paragraph, the primary proponent of "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" has created a sales pitch that starts out thusly:

Quote:

First and foremost, it's been demonstrated that insurance companies and DZOs want/need to see standardization of wingsuit training in order to best protect their interests in their aircraft.

Throughout mutliple threads on this subject, others have made a similar argument, all based on the above paragraph from the Norris email.

I too read that paragraph to mean that Jeff and/or the insurers seemed to be advocating a USPA-mandated wingsuit training course because the words he used seemd to be straight out of the primary proponent's own writings on the subject.

So I called Jeff and we had a very interesting conversation about this subject (and some others, too: He's an old-time skydiver and flight instructor for many years, so he goes way beyond just being an insurance underwriter in terms of appreciating and understanding sport parachuting).

Anyway, after our conversation, he sent me the following email, herre reproduced in its entirety per his request:

(Robin, please use this e-mail for it's only intended and ultimate agenda; wing suit safety. I would rather you quote it in its entirety than take bits and pieces out of it to fit any other purpose than it's overall intent.)

It was very good speaking with you Robin and thank you for alerting me to how some wing suit jumpers were interpreting my e-mail I sent out to all my aircraft operators that I insure regarding the wing suit jumper tail strike frequency problem. My e-mail was really only intended for those aircraft operators and its intent was to alert the aircraft operators to the very significant wing suit tail strike problem. I know that wing suit jumpers are a significant profit center for many of my clients and I wanted that income to continue for them plus, obviously, none of us wants to see jumpers injured or killed, and no one wants to read about a skydiving aircraft crash caused by a wing suit jumper and aircraft tail collision.

Apparently my e-mail reached some it was not intended for, which is fine, and you and some wing suit jumpers interpreted one paragraph of my e-mail as the insurance company advocating USPA regulation of wing suit jumping. To be clear, the insurance company is not advocating anything. All they told me is, if wing suit claims continue to be a problem, they will consider excluding that activity from my aircraft operators insurance policy. I suggested, as one possible solution, USPA regulation, to help promote wing suit safety. Please tell everyone not to concentrate on my word "regulation" but on my words "wing suit safety". If it can be regulated better and quicker some way else than through USPA formal regulation....Wonderful!

Many of my aircraft clients who received my e-mail have been very pro-active and have already instituted risk management protocols to help manage this risk. This was the whole intent of my e-mail to my aircraft operators; to save wing suit jumper lives, aircraft, and income. Things are already safer for wing suit jumpers at many drop zones across the country. My main agenda, with the help of all my aircraft operators, is to see the next 10 years go by without a single wing suit tail strike injury or death.

What is the wing suit community doing about regulating the problem, other that arguing about whether or not it should be regulated by the USPA? I think discussion is great but in my opinion, (now it is my opinion again) the wing suit community needs to redirect its discussion back onto the path of how to stop all tail strikes today! Let's make the last tail strike the last tail strike.

Jeff's answer is pretty reasonable and leaves things open. There needs to be a short term response to the problem, but then there can also be a long term response.

Of course the insurer wants to "standardize" in the sense of standardizing on a safe way to exit the airplane rather than a dangerous way to exit. A very good way to standardize what people do, is to standardize what people are taught, and that can be done by standardizing the training the teachers receive.

So the idea of "standardized training" could mean a lot of different things, and doesn't automatically imply a whole new USPA instructional and ratings system. Exactly what the role of the USPA should be, remains to be argued.

The title of your thread is "Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wing suit training via USPA""

In all fairness, that is not what I read into this e-mail. My take is, they support anything that eliminates tail strikes. Nowhere does he say he "does not support standardized wing suit training.

I'm hoping we can agree that training (correctly implemented) could be a good thing. If you're concerned about how this training might get implemented, get involved... run for a board position and help shape the solution. Proactive involvement trumps misdirected bitching every time.

wouldnt simply mandating an FFC with a legitimate signature to jump a wingsuit at all dropzones suffice? alot of places wont let you jump WS unless you have 200 jumps and a valid FFC signature, but most definitely not everywhere mandates this................. part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

thoughts?

Better education, yes, but two jumps tucked up to prove you can do it? Nope. I think just getting the word out to DZO's to start education wingsuiters and policing the exits might work fine.

wouldnt simply mandating an FFC with a legitimate signature to jump a wingsuit at all dropzones suffice? alot of places wont let you jump WS unless you have 200 jumps and a valid FFC signature, but most definitely not everywhere mandates this................. part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

thoughts?

I think part of the argument is how to define “legitimate signature” and a “valid FFC signature”.

I'll second that the title of this thread is incorrect and misleading. The gist of the email is that the insurance company does support the idea of standardized training in an effort to stem the problem with tail strikes, but that they do not have an opinion as to who administers said training. No where does he state an opposition to the USPA being the source, just that he does not see it as a requirement that they are involved to satisfy the insurance company.

The truth of the matter is that the insurance company doesn't care about required training at all, aside from the effect it will (might) have on reducing tail strikes. If there was a way to end tail strikes with no increased training requirement, like a static line that would hold your wings shut until you were 'x' feet from the plane, the insurance company would be happy with that. All they want is a solution, and they don't care where it comes from or what form it takes, so while this doesn't make the USPA a requirement, it also doesn't take them off the table all together.

I did think this was a neat misconception -

Quote:

I know that wing suit jumpers are a significant profit center for many of my clients

We all know that fun jumpers are not a 'profit center' for DZs, and when you distill that down to wingsuit jumpers, you can see that it's a 'blip' on the economic radar of a DZ. Take your average load on any given day, and think about how many wingsuiters there are on that load, maybe 1 or 2? How many loads fly with no wingsuiters? On loads with wingsuiters, how many of them left non-wingsuiting jumpers on the ground because the load was full, meaning that if the wingsuiters were not there, those slots would be full with paying jumpers anyway?

The point is that there is very little incentive for DZOs to allow wingsuiters at their DZ. Sure, Perris hosted 100 ways the other week, but without a couple dozen DZs out there willing to allow 1 or 2 wingsuiters per load, where the flyers could build their skills and experience, those 100 ways would have never happened. So short of a handful of boogies or big ways, the wingsuit community has no financial clout with DZOs, and shouldn't expect to be insulated if the insurance company balks and wants to raise rates or pull coverage.

I've said it before, and it's the same thing Jeff said, whatever the method, something needs to be done ASAP to take of this situation. One of the problems is that is seems that there is no problem until the next tail strike happens. We could all spend the next weekend wingsuiting with no restrictions as long as there is no tail strike. It's like jumping with a worn out line set, it's a risk, but as long as no lines break, everything will be just fine and you can jump as normal. Once a line breaks, however, the problem you had all along rears it's ugly head, and now you have a 'real' problem.

part of the FFC's should be at least one or two simulated wingsuit exits with the instructor keeping a keen eye on making sure the student keeps their "wings" closed on exit before they are actually allowed to jump a wingsuit.............

thoughts?

Better education, yes, but two jumps tucked up to prove you can do it? Nope. I think just getting the word out to DZO's to start education wingsuiters and policing the exits might work fine.

Where is the evidence that ANY tail strike has been due to inadequate initial instruction?

Most fatal accidents are experienced jumpers forgetting the basics. And given that the #1 cause of fatalities are screwups under canopies - and given that canopy training for students is minimal right now - that argues that early training might indeed make a big difference.

I think we need two things. We need an immediate solution to the problem; Robin's gadgets and signs might be a solution there. That won't help people thinking about starting out in wingsuiting, and it won't help the habitually inattentive, but it might reduce incidents which we need to do.

We also need a long term solution or we will be looking at exactly the same problem in 5 years. We need better training. USPA might be the people to do that; the USWSA (to make up an acronym) might be the people to do that. If experience is any guide, the approach of "just let each DZO figure it out themselves" will not work, any better than it's worked for canopy fatalities or pattern collisions.

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Where is the evidence that ANY tail strike has been due to inadequate initial instruction?

In reply to:

I understand your point, but on 'some level' wouldn't the tail-strike be the evidence?

If you are going to claim that, you have to claim that EVERY skydiving accident is due to inadequate initial training. After all, we are supposed to be trained to pull on time, avoid other canopies, not turn low, have a hard deck, avoid target fixation, fly a predictable pattern... yet experienced people fail to perform these things on a regular basis and end up in the "incidents" column.

I submit that it's not lack of training in most cases, it's when experienced people decide the training can be ignored.

Skyjumpenfool: The title of your thread is "Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wing suit training via USPA""

In all fairness, that is not what I read into this e-mail.

Quote:

davelepka: I'll second that the title of this thread is incorrect and misleading. The gist of the email is that the insurance company does support the idea of standardized training in an effort to stem the problem with tail strikes, but that they do not have an opinion as to who administers said training.

The word "support" has been changed to "demand" in the title because you and Dave are right; the word "support" can be read to suggest that the insurers oppose USPA regulation of wingsuiting and that is not the case -- as Jeff makes clear in his followup email, the insurers neither support nor oppose USPA regulation of wingsuiting; they just want tail strikes stopped yesterday.

Where is the evidence that ANY tail strike has been due to inadequate initial instruction?

In reply to:

I understand your point, but on 'some level' wouldn't the tail-strike be the evidence?

If you are going to claim that, you have to claim that EVERY skydiving accident is due to inadequate initial training. After all, we are supposed to be trained to pull on time, avoid other canopies, not turn low, have a hard deck, avoid target fixation, fly a predictable pattern... yet experienced people fail to perform these things on a regular basis and end up in the "incidents" column.

I submit that it's not lack of training in most cases, it's when experienced people decide the training can be ignored.

No argument there...

Maybe as I said in one of the other threads, the 'whole' culture of safety needs to be looked at.

But since here we're discussing wing-suits and tail strikes, wouldn't a specifically outlined progression of instruction by quality regulated instructors seem like a logical step?

Most certainly a continuing campaign designed to 'remind' people of what they have or 'should have' learned is a positive step as well...but hitting the problem from two sides, giving everyone the same baseline at the beginning would IMO reduce 'some' future hiccups.

It's growth & progress. Just because something worked 'before' doesn't mean now with more information & proven methods, and more people to spread it to, the 'old way' would be adequate or advisable.

I did my 1st jump with a 2.5 hr informal 'class' on ancient military S/L gear... with MY 'I' a couple years later the class was 6 hours and the gear was lots better. Growth & progress, now days one is hard pressed to even find a S/L course.

Lets be realistic, that part of the sport is growing fast...and as with AFF in the beginning, it could become geometric growth without the infrastructure in place to adequately address the influx.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Completely wrong Kevin. I'm holding the birdman classic manual from before the skyflyers came out and I took the course with jari and and Kim. The exit is exactly the same as what SPOT taught you. Although in his diagrams and pictures Douglas drops down 25 - 30 feet before opening.

He has created nothing different just added to what was in place and removed the silly flat spin recovery foolishness and replaced it with instability procedures.

If you have any manual from any suit maker that states exit open I would really love to see it.

I don't know about courses, but it seems like BirdMan actually did suggest keeping the wings closed, from pretty early on.

For reference, an undated BirdMan manual I downloaded back in June 2002 states:

Quote:

For the first flights we strongly suggest that you exit from inside the aircraft, head high and with your chest to the relative wind (similar to an AFF level 1 exit.) To perform a good poised exit the most important thing is to have your wings closed (arms tight to your body, legs together) for the first second that you are exposed to the relative wind. After you have safely cleared the aircraft, spread your wings (both arms and legs, all at the same time, symmetrically) and start your flight.

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Completely wrong Kevin. I'm holding the birdman classic manual from before the skyflyers came out and I took the course with jari and and Kim. The exit is exactly the same as what SPOT taught you. Although in his diagrams and pictures Douglas drops down 25 - 30 feet before opening.

He has created nothing different just added to what was in place and removed the silly flat spin recovery foolishness and replaced it with instability procedures.

If you have any manual from any suit maker that states exit open I would really love to see it.

It might not have been Birdman. Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). I'm sure of what I read, but I might have the document wrong. I'll ask him about it tomorrow when I get up there.

Easier and smarter to 'fix' a possible/probable bad situation before it happens than after...and considering the tone of the insurers caution & warning ~ we may already be at the front end of the 'after'.

I'm not aware of anyone opposed to a standardized curriculum.

All the objections I am aware of relate to creating a USPA rating system parallel to AFF (with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS course directors, evaluators, etc) with all the bureaucracy that entails.

It doesn't take a USPA rating to tell someone to keep their wings closed on exiting the plane. Even you and I could do that.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

We already have WS-I, WS-I/E ratings...? I think not.

Since you already have the acronyms you've made my point for me...the 'road-map' is there and it's proven, you understang the ratings and who would do what & how.

Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). I'm sure of what I read, but I might have the document wrong. It would be proposterous for any manufacturer to claim that as an ok exit technique. I've owned a suit from every big suit maker and don't recal ever seeing anything so crazy in print or online.

Now it would be very easy to fabricate something along those lines and distribute it to the unknowing BOD, whom very few have extensive WS knowledge, and other impressionable young minds as some kind of false fact. Lets say Im not suprised.

Now it would be very easy to fabricate something along those lines and distribute it to the unknowing BOD, whom very few have extensive WS knowledge, and other impressionable young minds as some kind of false fact. Lets say I'm not surprised.

In reply to:

It would be even easier to make false accusations regarding someone doing that...directly or by inference.

Do you have proof of said fabrication, or can you cite solid reference to instances of past such falsification of materials presented to the BOD by this individual?

Or are you merely slinging shit because of personality conflicts arising through difference of opinion?

It would be even easier to make false accusations regarding someone doing that...directly or by inference.

Do you have proof of said fabrication, or can you cite solid reference to instances of past such falsification of materials presented to the BOD by this individual?

Or are you merely slinging shit because of personality conflicts arising through difference of opinion?

Inquiring minds want to know. Directly quoted from Kevin T's ( you know him as Gobble) reply to my post= "Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). " So I can gather that this document was shown to 1 impressionable young Kevin and 2 the BOD at said meeting.

Kevin/ Gobble is one of Spot's supporters so , I would believe, never as you say sling shit due to personal conflicts.

I have no idea what materials or verbage was presented to any BOD meeting. it could have been the peanut butter jelly time song and dance for all I know.

Of course if any of you produce a bonafide wingsuit manual that proves the claim of such an exit, as in open wing or delta, I will give you all an apology for overreaction due to my difference of opinoin.

It would be even easier to make false accusations regarding someone doing that...directly or by inference.

Do you have proof of said fabrication, or can you cite solid reference to instances of past such falsification of materials presented to the BOD by this individual?

Or are you merely slinging shit because of personality conflicts arising through difference of opinion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Directly quoted from Kevin T's ( you know him as Gobble) reply to my post= "Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). " So I can gather that this document was shown to 1 impressionable young Kevin and 2 the BOD at said meeting.

Kevin/ Gobble is one of Spot's supporters so , I would believe, never as you say sling shit due to personal conflicts.

I have no idea what materials or verbage was presented to any BOD meeting. it could have been the peanut butter jelly time song and dance for all I know.

Of course if any of you produce a bonafide wingsuit manual that proves the claim of such an exit, as in open wing or delta, I will give you all an apology for overreaction due to my difference of opinoin. The fact that I support the proposal doesn't mean I'm willing to lie. So either I'm being played or just plain stupid? I don't know why you keep using my name or why you even feel it is important. I've not misrepresented my experience level, or anything else. I've expressed personal opinions same as you. On the fabrication note I don't believe he'd be that stupid.

The fact that I support the proposal doesn't mean I'm willing to lie. So either I'm being played or just plain stupid? I don't know why you keep using my name or why you even feel it is important. I've not misrepresented my experience level, or anything else. I've expressed personal opinions same as you. On the fabrication note I don't believe he'd be that stupid. kevin I actually hold your integrity quite high ( so far) . I don't think you would lie about this document, I believe you when you say you read it. I use your name so people don't accuse me of making a false account to have this banter, your account profile is not filled out but you are a real person.

But I know this if I would have been shown this document, as you say, a factory wingsuit instruction manual that states exiting in an open arms configuration I would be very suspicious of its origins. Like I said before I've owned every major brand of suit, none of the minors like mortis and Alien, read a lot of manuals. Well all of them. And like any hungry WS pilot most of the materials available on factory web pages yet I've never come across exit open methodology.

I know you are not lying about what was shown to you and later the BOD. Furthermore I am not telling anyone what to believe in terms of what was fabricated or who is stupid or daring enough to prey on the stupid.

IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.

Completely wrong Kevin. I'm holding the birdman classic manual from before the skyflyers came out and I took the course with jari and and Kim. The exit is exactly the same as what SPOT taught you. Although in his diagrams and pictures Douglas drops down 25 - 30 feet before opening.

He has created nothing different just added to what was in place and removed the silly flat spin recovery foolishness and replaced it with instability procedures.

If you have any manual from any suit maker that states exit open I would really love to see it.

It might not have been Birdman. Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). I'm sure of what I read, but I might have the document wrong. I'll ask him about it tomorrow when I get up there.

My first suit was a BM, and I learned on a borrowed BM Classic suit. None of the BM literature I have (from years ago) says to do anything other than to exit with wings CLOSED. And that is what my "BM Instructor" taught.

Depends on one's interpretation of "standard". I did see a manufacturer's WSI given to someone once simply because that person was purportedly good at anal sex. Personally, I hope that's not how the program is rolled out.

Yes the title of the thread was written not for fact but for attention, he got ours.....

Hmmm?? I have no dog in this fight. I've been following this issue very closely because my son is flying wing suits. I just really want to see this issue discussed honestly without the usual bullying and BS. I know it’s easy to spin the facts, hell, just look at the current Presidential election. I just think most of us (and I believe the OP sees this) are smart enough to know better.

If you (or anyone) want my support, argue your case honestly!!! Present the facts as you know them and be prepared to back up your statements. We’re skydivers, not politicians. Spin… that’s something your wash machine does to dry clothes.

So it seems maybe a compromise would be to adopt a set of standardized rules for WS Instructors to use, maybe even say a I rating in any other field, excluding Tandem, should be held, at least we then have a minimum standard of Instructor Quality.

Personally, if WSing goes away it harms me not. I am just trying to help keep friends alive and enjoying the aspect of the sport they like.

But we Skydivers tend to be our own worst enemy. Tails Strikes happen, the Insurance folks don't like it, flying beyond the two nautical mile radius happens (with more than WS's yes) and GA Pilots complain, the FAA doesn't like that.

Maybe once we have the calm rational adult conversations, we compromise on a Set of Standards, no Rating, and unify ourselves in front of the Insurance Co's and the FAA. Hopefully in the end, saving not only WSing, but Skydiving as well.

I see that you're responding to Ron's comment about BSRs, but your comment applies to the current WS-I and instructional programs. None of it is working to the level that we need (one that will satisfy the insurance company), and the proof is the problem with tail strikes.

So there are manufacturer programs and instructional ratings in place that have been around for years? Great, but we still had a tail strike every 29 days last year, so those programs aren't working.

Again, everyone can argue back and forth about what 'might' work, and what the problem 'might' be, but in the meantime, inaction can and will lead to no action for anyone with a wingsuit.

Before the insurance company launched a warning shot across our bow, there was one camp saying we needed more structure, more training, and the USPA in order to move forward, and another camp that felt the status quo was fine, and at that time, that was OK. There was no impending problems or restrictions on the horizon, there were simply possible problems and those were all being cited by the pro-USPA crowd (big surprise).

Things have changed significantly. Now the term 'do or die' has come to play, and I don't mean die as in the end of a life, I mean die as in the end of wingsuiting in the US. The tactic now should be to use anything and everything we can think of in order to end the problem and keep the insurance company happy. Like it or not, wingsuiting is not 'too big to fail', so you can either bicker back and forth about what 'should' work, and what 'should' be done, just do it all and hope that it's enough.

Short of that, kudos for making the 100 way happen, as that might be the last wingsuit record set in this country. In a throwback to the DZ.com days of yore, that record got in 'before the lock'.

Seems at one point there WAS standardization, but in many different locations.

So when did it stop being the norm, as exposed in youtube videos showing first flight students, and experienced flyers exiting and going to an open wing immediately?

Matt

The factory information either in the form of manuals or tips on the various factory websites is almost plagiarist in similarity. The same information in it's basic form is available in the SIM. The individual factory information differed in regards to rigging the suit and how to deal with instability. Exits, deployments were pretty much otherwise standard.

The information was so simple that having 500 jumps negated the need for an instructor or coach to tag along on the First flight to verify. Just read the manual and go. This was pretty much universal across all makes.

If you fell into the 200-500 jump experience range this required a coach/ mentor. Basically someone with wingsuit experience and XX number of WS jumps. Here is were the standard could fluctuate. But remember the info is so basic 500 jumps and reading the manual was sufficient.

The strikes and bad video can be attributed to complacency or a reckless execution of an exit taught during AFF.

At a big way camp Dan BC gave us a lecture on our biggest foe. Complacency! Things we know and typically know how to do well that we get lazy about because we've gotten away with a thousand to 20 thousands of times. Like lack of attention or allowing sloppyness into our procedures.

What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

There is not a WS instructor system in place.

We do have BSR's already in place, why not use them instead of creating a bunch of new crap?

No I understand that Ron, what I'm saying is there is a template in place...as far as all the other standardized forms of instruction.

Any yes I also understand the argument WS is an 'advanced' discipline and no other advanced areas have it...I still maintain that's no reason 'not' to have the system in place.

And it is not a reason to do it either.

You're right, there are all kinds of logical reasons to do it, and they've been brought up time and again in just about all of these WSI discussion threads.

Bottom line, it will happen or it won't...either way the sun will rise in the morning.

It's my contention that we have window of opportunity in which to make our sport a bit safer.

Is there any question that if we'd have taken proactive measures back when swooping was just taking off, some lives would have been saved?

In any other form of aviation when you want to operate more complex equipment you seek out & receive standardized training commensurate with your skill level.

Then you are required to demonstrate the ability to utilize the complex equipment and either get signed off or get directed to receive more training.

We should have done that with HP canopies, the trend was obvious and the fatality rate unacceptable way back when...but no, many of the same arguments against oversight & regulation were made and the monster grew to a point drop-zones stepped in with local regulation in an attempt to avoid further carnage.

The problems with wing suits are operator error and are preventable, we just need the balls and the resolve to do it.

We can hit this from several angles and should. It's how they prevent accidents in aviation.

>Well, then how is creating an instructor system going to change anything?

By teaching what is currently in the SIM. Most people don't know it's there. Heck, you're an instructor and you didn't know it was there.

That is simpy because I have no interest in wingsuits. I did two and found it not my style. I DID find a person with experience and got a briefing from them. I did it without the guy having an 'official' rating.

You are an instructor and I bet you have seen certified instructors teach things incorrectly... Like the 45* angle for separation. So simply put, just having instructors does not mean that the correct information will get out.

Sounds like we have some problems with AFF-I's from what you're describing.

Yes, and I have seen tandem I's not hook up laterals. I have seen SL doing harness hold jumps. I have seen TI's to busy filming a cutaway to pull the reserve handle. More so, I have seen students do things like cut away because the canopy was rectangular, not square. I have seen a student cut away because she could not get the slider back UP.

So what that goes to show is that creating an instructor rating system is not actually going to fix the problem.

I don't know why people are so set on creating a system when they have no proof that it will solve the problem, WS people don't even all agree, and MUCH simpler ideas could be tried.

>That is simpy because I have no interest in wingsuits. I did two . . . .

Right. You are an AFF instructor who has gone wingsuiting and gotten instruction on it - and you STILL didn't know it was in the SIM. That tells me that your average 500 jump wonder has an even smaller chance of knowing it's there.

Unless someone tells them - which is the point.

>You are an instructor and I bet you have seen certified instructors teach things >incorrectly... Like the 45* angle for separation.

Agreed, that's a problem. I do not think the right solution to that is "so therefore let's not teach them anything about separation; the airplane manufacturer will do it. Or someone else will."

[reply At a big way camp Dan BC gave us a lecture on our biggest foe. Complacency! Things we know and typically know how to do well that we get lazy about because we've gotten away with a thousand to 20 thousands of times. Like lack of attention or allowing sloppyness into our procedures. +1

Sounds like we have some problems with AFF-I's from what you're describing.

Yes, and I have seen tandem I's not hook up laterals. I have seen SL doing harness hold jumps. I have seen TI's to busy filming a cutaway to pull the reserve handle. More so, I have seen students do things like cut away because the canopy was rectangular, not square. I have seen a student cut away because she could not get the slider back UP.

So what that goes to show is that creating an instructor rating system is not actually going to fix the problem.

I don't know why people are so set on creating a system when they have no proof that it will solve the problem, WS people don't even all agree, and MUCH simpler ideas could be tried.

Ron you're answering your own question.

In one breath you say simple solution, minimum standards.

In the next you show how even with higher standards and requirements ~ ~ ~ the fuck-ups slip through and create a dangerous/hazardous situation.

You've been around block, we both know that even though it's never talked about openly for $everal reason$...as skydiving becomes more & more mainstream there's a good sized chunk of participants that in all truth would've been in a bowling shirt 20 years ago.

As you illustrated above, some of 'em even get instructor ratings!

NOW more than ever those of us that truly understand there really IS NO reset button here, need to step up and create an environment in which the people wanting on the roller-coaster are tall enough, the safety bar is down and there's nothing within arms reach when on the ride.

...'cause sure as shit, a few of 'em don't see the danger and expect Mickey Mouse to take care of them.

We let them in the amusement park, we now have to provide the adult supervision they EXPECT when they bought tickets.

Last several years we're talking about the 'kids with cameras' - the unprepared & unaware on fast canopies...now the latest & greatest thing is catching on like free porno.

A series of actual incidents are looking like a dangerous trend is developing.

There is a glitch somewhere and realistically, anyone who thinks a section in the SIM, some talkin' to, and a sticker by the door with make everything 'all better', needs to take a hard look at all the success that's had previously addressing injuries & fatalities to skydivers off student status performing advanced jumps.

I'm sorry, but when you let enough people from the back half of the bell curve play with guns, purposely offering minimum training in the hope they'll figure it out...Well, we're gonna need a lot more body-bags.

Right. You are an AFF instructor who has gone wingsuiting and gotten instruction on it - and you STILL didn't know it was in the SIM. That tells me that your average 500 jump wonder has an even smaller chance of knowing it's there

No, if I was interested in WS I would find the information or find a person to give me the information. You seemed to have missed that I did that.

Quote:

Unless someone tells them - which is the point.

The aircraft owner is responsible to make sure that the jumper is informed. The DZO is responsible. If the DZO or the owner does not take that action, then they have to deal with the insurance issues.

The individual jumper is responsible as well.

Creating a rating will not change that.

Quote:

Agreed, that's a problem. I do not think the right solution to that is "so therefore let's not teach them anything about separation; the airplane manufacturer will do it. Or someone else will."

So you are going to create an "aircraft separation instructor" program?

No, I am pointing out that creating a rating will not solve any problem.

Quote:

You've been around block, we both know that even though it's never talked about openly for $everal reason$...as skydiving becomes more & more mainstream there's a good sized chunk of participants that in all truth would've been in a bowling shirt 20 years ago.

As you illustrated above, some of 'em even get instructor ratings!

And creating yet another instructor rating will not prevent that.

Quote:

NOW more than ever those of us that truly understand there really IS NO reset button here, need to step up and create an environment in which the people wanting on the roller-coaster are tall enough, the safety bar is down and there's nothing within arms reach when on the ride.

YES, the question is how. You seem to think that only by creating another rating system it can work. I think that the wingsuiters could create their own organization, the wingsuiters could create a standard practice and make it available to every DZO, the wingsuiters could create a standard practice and give it to the USPA.

One creates additional BS organization that not even wingsuiters can agree on is the answer. The other gives DZO's, DZM's, jumpers, and aircraft owners the information and lets them decide.

Quote:

Last several years we're talking about the 'kids with cameras' - the unprepared & unaware on fast canopies...now the latest & greatest thing is catching on like free porno...I'm sorry, but when you let enough people from the back half of the bell curve play with guns, purposely offering minimum training in the hope they'll figure it out...Well, we're gonna need a lot more body-bags.

Yet I do not see you trying to create a "camera instructor" rating system or a "canopy instructor" rating system. Why is that?

I don't know why people are so set on creating a system when they have no proof that it will solve the problem, WS people don't even all agree, and MUCH simpler ideas could be tried.

I totally agree with the KISS methodology. However, here’s the problem as I see it.

In the beginning, some “extremely good” wingsuiters emerged. They got extremely good on their own accord. Hell, they had to since there was no-one to teach them. Along the way, we lost quite a few in the learning process. We accepted that.

So, the survivors start to bring on “new” jumpers to the discipline. These new wingsuiters get good at it, but, not “Extremely Good” like their teachers. Now, the “good” jumpers begin teaching newer jumpers who become “OK” at it. In turn, the “OK” jumpers are teaching the 30 jump wonders how to be an expert? This process is broken!

Enter…. Standardized Instruction!!! Maybe not a cure all, but it’s a start. Remember, I’m an Educator and speak to this from an edumacation perspective. This is where “Best Practices” take over.

I don't know why people are so set on creating a system when they have no proof that it will solve the problem, WS people don't even all agree, and MUCH simpler ideas could be tried.

I totally agree with the KISS methodology. However, here’s the problem as I see it.

In the beginning, some “extremely good” wingsuiters emerged. They got extremely good on their own accord. Hell, they had to since there was no-one to teach them. Along the way, we lost quite a few in the learning process. We accepted that.

So, the survivors start to bring on “new” jumpers to the discipline. These new wingsuiters get good at it, but, not “Extremely Good” like their teachers. Now, the “good” jumpers begin teaching newer jumpers who become “OK” at it. In turn, the “OK” jumpers are teaching the 30 jump wonders how to be an expert? This process is broken!

Enter…. Standardized Instruction!!! Maybe not a cure all, but it’s a start. Remember, I’m an Educator and speak to this from an edumacation perspective. This is where “Best Practices” take over.

Having standardized instruction (which is good) does not imply the need to create a parallel system to AFF, with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS Course Directors, etc. Teaching an already licensed skydiver the issues involved in transitioning to a WS is nothing remotely like teaching a whuffo how to skydive.

I don't know why people are so set on creating a system when they have no proof that it will solve the problem, WS people don't even all agree, and MUCH simpler ideas could be tried.

I totally agree with the KISS methodology. However, here’s the problem as I see it.

In the beginning, some “extremely good” wingsuiters emerged. They got extremely good on their own accord. Hell, they had to since there was no-one to teach them. Along the way, we lost quite a few in the learning process. We accepted that.

So, the survivors start to bring on “new” jumpers to the discipline. These new wingsuiters get good at it, but, not “Extremely Good” like their teachers. Now, the “good” jumpers begin teaching newer jumpers who become “OK” at it. In turn, the “OK” jumpers are teaching the 30 jump wonders how to be an expert? This process is broken!

Enter…. Standardized Instruction!!! Maybe not a cure all, but it’s a start. Remember, I’m an Educator and speak to this from an edumacation perspective. This is where “Best Practices” take over.

Having standardized instruction (which is good) does not imply the need to create a parallel system to AFF, with WS-I, WS-I/E, WS Course Directors, etc. Teaching an already licensed skydiver the issues involved in transitioning to a WS is nothing remotely like teaching a whuffo how to skydive.

Absolutely agee.... The course might be 5 minutes long. Education is no place for Bureaucracy!

>No, if I was interested in WS I would find the information or find a person to give me >the information. You seemed to have missed that I did that.

Right, and that's great.

But you were talking about the lack of specific exit techniques from USPA. And not even you - an instructor who went out of his way to learn about wingsuiting, and actually sought out information on it - knew about it. Given that your average 500 jumps wonder has no chance.

Keep in mind this program is not trying to save someone like you; you're an instructor, have a ton of connections and know how to seek out the instruction you need. The people we do have to reach are the yahoos who have ten pounds of enthusiasm, a pound of experience and an ounce of contacts in the wingsuiting world.

>So you are going to create an "aircraft separation instructor" program?

Nope, we don't need a separate program for that, because we already have one. It's called the ISP. It is taught by instructors or coaches. Exit separation is part of Category F:

================================== 1. Slower-falling jumpers and groups are exposed to upper headwinds longer and are blown farther downwind than faster-falling jumpers and groups.

a. Slower-falling groups should exit before faster-falling groups if jump run is flown into the wind.

b. On days with strong upper headwinds, allow more time between groups on the same pass to get sufficient horizontal separation over the ground.

3. Whether flying one or more aircraft, each pass should allow enough time for jumpers on a previous pass to descend to a safe altitude before dropping jumpers from the next pass. ====================================

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

On the contrary, I could ask you how many jumpers involved in tail strikes recieved adequate initial training, but in the end, neither one of us would be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty.

Arguing the sematics and nit-picking the methods are the old protocol, when time was on our side. The new protocol is much more time sensitive, and much more demanding of results.

The question you should be asking is, 'Could inadequate initial training be a contributing factor in any or all of the tail strikes?'. If the answer is 'yes' then that issue needs to be addressed in the effort to END tail strikes. Ditto for complacency, ditto for lack of placarding, ditto for the failure of the community to make it a 'hot topic' (like harness checks, remmeber when nobody did those?).

Whatever the 'majority' cause may be, or even the 'most likely', the call now is to end tail strikes 100%, so the method must be to address any and all possible contributors to the problem. Excluding any one of them is running the risk that it will lead to the next tail strike, and the possible loss of coverage for aircraft that fly wingsuiters.

Teaching an already licensed skydiver the issues involved in transitioning to a WS is nothing remotely like teaching a whuffo how to skydive.

Maybe you've only been seeing the dumbed-down WS teaching methods from the poor instructor camps. The FFC's I've been watching are very similar to FJC's. Much time is spent on the ground teaching what can go wrong and how to deal with issues. Students put on gear and practice their entire dives on the ground over and over. Focus of the initial jump is stable freefall and stable deployment at the correct altitude. Wait, am I describing FFC or FJC? It's hard to tell because they're very similar.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

If they perceive that wingsuit jumping is too risky to insure then they will simply remove that risk from the policy i.e. exclusion rider or price that risk so that they can justify the coverage or simply do away with the coverage entirely.

If most non-wingsuiters had their drothers I would venture to say they would vote for the exclusion so that they don't have to pony up more money for a jump ticket.

I hope it doesn't come to that because I don't want wingsuiting to go away.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump.

You can always go back and tweak the system.

There are a lot of businesses that have closed their doors because they could no longer afford the insurance premiums.

It's time for cooler heads to prevail.

Someone much smarter than I once said "If not us - who? If not now - when?"

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

Somehow I don't see answering the concerns with ~ It's a complacency issue and... well you know, boyz will be boyz. is gonna cut it with the companies losing $ fixing the aircraft.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.

I reality does anyone ever have 100% solid evidence anything 'will' absolutely work in the future?

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.

Using your logic, we should have a USPA certified bureaucracy for CRW, sit flying, vRW, sport accuracy, swooping, raft jumps, etc. The amount of evidence you have for incidents in these disciplines being due to poor training is EXACTLY the same as you have with wingsuiting.

If aircraft insurers were threatening to not cover aircraft used for CRW jumpers due to CRW jumpers opening six inches out the door and tearing aircraft tails off, then yes, it might make sense for USPA to look at better training for CRW jumpers.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.

Using your logic, we should have a USPA certified bureaucracy for CRW, sit flying, vRW, sport accuracy, swooping, raft jumps, etc. The amount of evidence you have for incidents in these disciplines being due to poor training is EXACTLY the same as you have with wingsuiting.

Yup...a soon as drop-zones start getting letters from insurance companies regarding payouts on damage caused by those disciplines, we'll prolly have to look at them too!

If aircraft insurers were threatening to not cover aircraft used for CRW jumpers due to CRW jumpers opening six inches out the door and tearing aircraft tails off, then yes, it might make sense for USPA to look at better training for CRW jumpers.

I would agree, IF there were any evidence that the incidents in question had been due to poor training.

HOWEVER, there isn't. Just as there isn't any that wingsuit tail strikes have been due to poor training.

But you were talking about the lack of specific exit techniques from USPA. And not even you - an instructor who went out of his way to learn about wingsuiting, and actually sought out information on it - knew about it. Given that your average 500 jumps wonder has no chance.

When I did my WS jumps... It was not in the SIM. Since I have done none since, there is little reason for me to bother to check.

Also, even without the training I knew to keep my wings closed till well after I left the plane.

Quote:

Keep in mind this program is not trying to save someone like you; you're an instructor, have a ton of connections and know how to seek out the instruction you need. The people we do have to reach are the yahoos who have ten pounds of enthusiasm, a pound of experience and an ounce of contacts in the wingsuiting world.

All you need to have happen is DSE creating a 'best practice' and giving it to the DZO's and aircraft owners. They can then make that type of exit MANDATORY. "Comply or no fly".

It does not take creating another bureaucracy.

Quote:

>So you are going to create an "aircraft separation instructor" program?

Nope, we don't need a separate program for that, because we already have one.

OK, since people get killed on big ways, you now going to support a bigway instructor system?

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

Enter…. Standardized Instruction!!! Maybe not a cure all, but it’s a start. Remember, I’m an Educator and speak to this from an edumacation perspective. This is where “Best Practices” take over.

Education does not equal a program from the USPA. That the failure of this logic. No one is saying education is not the answer, I am saying that the USPA is not the best choice.

Look at base jumping. Your same argument applies, but it was fixed without dragging in the USPA. There are BASE schools and they have nothing to do with the USPA.

The SAME thing can be done with WS. They can create their own organization and teach till they are blue in the face.

I am also an educator. I have been a skydiving instructor since the early 90's. I have been a corporate instructor, and now I hold seminars for corporations. No one is saying education is not the answer.... Just that it is not the scope of the USPA to teach advanced instruction.

When 4way was the rage, the USPA didn't create a "4way Instructor". People like Pirus helped created Skydive U.

When sky surf was growing (and killing people and freaking them out) the USPA didn't create a skysurf instructor rating. There however were several schools (The Arizona Boarding School is the only one I can remember, but there was on in Titusville, FL as well).

When freeflying caught on with all its additional and new dangers, the USPA didn't create a "Freeflying Instructor" rating system. Atmospheric Dolphin created the AD1 through whatever system.

When gravity balls were the rage and people were dropping them left and right, the USPA didn't create a "Gravity Ball Instructor"... Instead private organizations (AD) created a rating system and most DZ's required that approval to jump with a gravity ball.

When swooping was the rage, the USPA didn't create "Swooping Instructors". People like Ian Bobo created Flight 1.

So NO ONE is saying education is not the answer. What several people are saying is that involving the USPA is not the answer.

NOTHING is stopping DSE from creating the "First school of wing flight" and running it like so many others have done.

No one is saying that education is not the answer... only that the USPA is not the organization to create, certify, or run the program.

Using your logic, we should have a USPA certified bureaucracy for CRW, sit flying, vRW, sport accuracy, swooping, raft jumps, etc. The amount of evidence you have for incidents in these disciplines being due to poor training is EXACTLY the same as you have with wingsuiting.

Yup...a soon as drop-zones start getting letters from insurance companies regarding payouts on damage caused by those disciplines, we'll prolly have to look at them too!

You can bet your boots, and your PRO Rating, that if the proponents of this initiative had ANY evidence that the tailstrikes they quote had been due to poorly instructed newbies, it would be all over DZ.COM, Facebook, Twitter, and every other forum frquented by skydivers. Every incident except Harrington's had an individual involved who could have been asked how he was instructed to exit. Yet apparently no one thought to do this (or they chose not to). Harrington was an extremely experienced WS flier with over 1,000 WS jumps. Highly doubtful that poor training could be blamed for that incident.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

I usually agree with you, Twardo, but here I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Here's why:

I'm not sure that you have evidence that what we're doing now is not correcting the problem. (Hear me out):

In 2011, we reportedly had one wingsuit-related aircraft strike every 28 days. I'm not going to harp on the fact that those stats were apparently worldwide statistics, and included things like people catching their foot on the door while exiting - for our purposes here, let's just assume they're all legitimate.

For a few months now, the thing I've been asking for has been an accounting of wingsuit-related tailstrikes in the U.S. in the year 2012. Since Spot seems to be the only person who receives reports of such things (or Rich Winstock as well, perhaps?), I wish they would furnish those in the interest of transparency.

I suspect we'll find a drastically-reduced amount of strikes. Worldwide. Why? Because of awareness. Awareness is the only thing that can trump complacency. We've been discussing this thing so much that people have become aware of it. Let's keep that awareness going.

What I want is the same thing that the insurance company wants (as evidenced by Jeff's letter to Robin): for tailstrikes to stop. I think that's what we all want. And if our increased awareness has led to a great reduction (or elimination) in the amount of tailstrikes, I'd much rather keep growing that awareness, because it's working.

In the wingsuit forum (IIRC), Lurch had a great recommendation for an information campaign - I think we should make that a much higher priority than a new bureaucratic program to require every skydiver who wants to fly a wingsuit have someone read them the SIM.

----

I just want to see these things stop. If I had a guarantee that a USPA-sanctioned wingsuit instructor program would stop them, I'd be much more likely to be for it.

As it is, I've taken a step back to try and take a balanced, objective look at the pros and cons of a mandatory WSI program. And from where I sit, the cons far outweigh the pros. For me, the legal implications and the added bureaucracy far outweigh any potential gains we might see - particularly if awareness is truly the key to stopping tailstrikes (which, it would seem based on the lack of 2012 reports, is the case).

If we're doing a lot better on tailstrikes this year, it seems that a mandatory bureaucratic program isn't the solution we're looking for.

So I'll ask again - can anyone give me a report of how many wingsuit-related tailstrikes we've had in the U.S. since the start of 2012?

Make each wingsuiter watch a "Bill Booth" video about the dangers of tail strikes, take a short written test, and sign a waiver. Then they get a little sticker for their helmet that shows they passed. Add a $5 surcharge for processing.

The waiver could include things "Tail strikes to be paid for by jumper" Jumper's gear and car will be held until paid in full for damages.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

It might work, but it is going to be messy and overkill.

Yeah... uhm... ok ... I'm not sure what you thought I said in my post that led to your response.

Creating a bureaucracy ?? entire new training system?? USPA???..... I'm pretty sure I didn't say or even elude to any of that.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

It might work, but it is going to be messy and overkill.

Yeah... uhm... ok ... I'm not sure what you thought I said in my post that led to your response.

Creating a bureaucracy ?? entire new training system?? USPA???..... I'm pretty sure I didn't say or even elude to any of that.

.

You said it is time to do something. 'Find middle ground'.

I just used your post to once again state that creating another instructional system is overkill.

But, doing something, when not well thought out risks adding BS with little to no benefit.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

It might work, but it is going to be messy and overkill.

Yeah... uhm... ok ... I'm not sure what you thought I said in my post that led to your response.

Creating a bureaucracy ?? entire new training system?? USPA???..... I'm pretty sure I didn't say or even elude to any of that.

.

You said it is time to do something. 'Find middle ground'.

I just used your post to once again state that creating another instructional system is overkill.

But, doing something, when not well thought out risks adding BS with little to no benefit.

Your posts are just making the point in my original post.

Having been in the insurance business for the past 30 years - if I were giving advice to the underwriters of these incidents I would tell them:

" It appears that the skydiving community can not find a consensus to address our concerns on these hull damage claims due to "wingsuit jumpers".

Our only course of action is to pull the overage of these types of jumps until the skydiving industry can come up with a solution that meets our terms of risk management.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

+1

This thread is getting far off topic and devolving once again into the very thing Jeff said we needed to stop doing; arguing about whether USPA should administer and standardize advanced wingsuit training.

The "reminder chain" I proposed, and which Jeff disseminated throughout his client pool, is an example of what the insurers seek: immediate action to stop tail strikes.

According to Jeff, the primary choice among DZOs to date has been to institute the "3-second rule" and/or to place Skydive Elsinore's "Fight the Bite" stickers near their Pavlov lights.

To date, we have had no additional tail strikes since the last one, which, IIRC was 2-3 months ago.

So we seem to have a good start., given that we were averaging about one a month before Jeff's initial insurance carrier warning email.

But we need to stay focused on what we can do now to reduce tail strikes.

The DZOs have already made their choices, either by suspending wingsuiting for now; or instituting the 3-second rule and various reminders.

Next up should be dealing with something that the primary proposal pusher has asserted repeatedly: that various grand exalted wingsuit senseis are teaching different exit methods, some of which "encourage" tail strikes while others discourage it.

It seems to me that, all the hoohah aside, the next step should to be convene an online or in-person meeting of the grand exalted wingsuit senseis and have them hash out a standardized exit. Period. Full stop.

That is the standardization the insurers most want to see; a standardized exit that eliminates tail strikes -- and really, if all of the grand exalted wingsuit senseis agree simply on keeping their wings closed for 3 seconds, there isn't too much more to standardize except for the definition of "wings closed" -- which I propose should be based on the original Birdman technique that, IIRC, defines "wings closed" as: "elbows against your ribs, legs together until you can see that you are clear of the plane."

Standardize the definition of "wings closed" and you standardize the exit, which will radically reduce the chance of tail strikes -- and then we can all argue about the rest later.

That is what Jeff's email is all about, and for everyone's convenience, here again is the last paragraph thereof:

Quote:

What is the wing suit community doing about regulating the problem, other that arguing about whether or not it should be regulated by the USPA? I think discussion is great but in my opinion, (now it is my opinion again) the wing suit community needs to redirect its discussion back onto the path of how to stop all tail strikes today! Let's make the last tail strike the last tail strike.

There is no argument to wingsuit instruction. Apparently we will all seem to disagree on that till some of us are dead. That's all. I have no other interest invested. No brand. No rating. Fuck would I want in the middle of the dress drama??? I just don't understand WHY some are SO angrily against an attempt to improve wingsuiting. (more so given the aircraft flaying air mattresses these days)

Arguing guys with thousands of jumps are going in doesn't support the other side to me...at all. If the smart experienced guys are having issues, then we are doing something wrong! We've had an unofficial rating and training program for YEARS now. Look how well that's working. We need a common curriculum IMO. I will vote accordingly.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

I usually agree with you, Twardo, but here I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Here's why:

I'm not sure that you have evidence that what we're doing now is not correcting the problem. (Hear me out):

In 2011, we reportedly had one wingsuit-related aircraft strike every 28 days. I'm not going to harp on the fact that those stats were apparently worldwide statistics, and included things like people catching their foot on the door while exiting. - for our purposes here, let's just assume they're all legitimate.

Every listed tailstrike is a body part or rig making contact with a horizontal stabilizer. In nearly all cases on the public chart, the cost of repair, type of injury (if any) is noted.

"Catching a foot on a door while exiting" isn't uniquely listed in the chart, unless the foot catch resulted in a body/rig to making contact with the horizontal (or vertical) stabilizer.

Yes, they're world-wide. The broad majority of them are in the US. There are a few not on the list because they've either surfaced after the last list was generated, or they are not confirmed. "more" doesn't seem better in this conversation.

Yes, they're world-wide. The broad majority of them are in the US. There are a few not on the list because they've either surfaced after the last list was generated, or they are not confirmed. "more" doesn't seem better in this conversation.

How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?

How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?

We've heard it Doc ~ how about every time the urge to ask for proof a WSI program would lower incedent rates 'his ya'... YOU think of me sayin' show me proof it won't.

We'll save tons of bandwidth!

Just to remind everyone...the 'tail-strike' issue is only one of many procedural standardization issues addressed in the proposed WSI program.

Though in my opinion it's certainly a good and an immediately important 'time critical' reason, it's just one of many.

~just don't want those who may have not read the proposed curriculum to think that exits/tail-strikes is the ONLY thing it addresses.

Whether or not the aircraft insurers 'support standardized wing-suit training' is ~

(1) actually kinda unclear...after being totally bombarded with questions, comments & complaints regarding a 'business correspondence' that in all likelihood wasn't intended for public distribution & discussion, I get the impression the insurers are saying 'do what you have to' - just leave me the fuck alone.

Insurers primary focus is on hull damage caused by improperly performed exits...I have no doubt they aren't overly concerned with how it's dealt with, nor should they be.

They aren't in the business of dictating Skydiving Safety & Training policy.

I'm sure that if enough 'experts' called & emailed them enough times, stating that tail-strikes could be avoided if everyone stuck a rubber duck up their ass they'd say go for it...

It's results regarding eliminating tail-strikes they are after...let's not lose sight of that, WE are concerned with the long-term BIG picture.

The engineers at Cessna to the best of my knowledge were never consulted regarding the content of the AFFI standardized curriculum...just because we use their product in our sport doesn't mean they run our training program.

It's just as ludicrous to give a shit what some guy behind a desk at an insurance company says he supports or doesn't support when referring to an overall program.

His primary concern is only with one small area to save dollars ~ Skydivers primary concern is with saving LIVES...at least is should be!

... How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?

In reply to:

No, that question has NOT been answered, despite being asked several times. Until someone answers, expect to hear it again.

Okay, I'll bite: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! (Their level of experience is irrelevant.)

They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

(Note: I'm not a wingsuiter and don't really have an opinion on the proposal.)

About two weeks ago I fixed a poster to the aft bulkhead of my Otter that says...

"Wingsuit Do not open your wings until at least three seconds after exit to avoid tailstrike."

I don't think anyone will be able to get to altitude and out the door without at least seeing this reminder. I'll post others too when I can at other strategic locations around the DZ and inside the a/c.

About two weeks ago I fixed a poster to the aft bulkhead of my Otter that says...

"Wingsuit Do not open your wings until at least three seconds after exit to avoid tailstrike."

I don't think anyone will be able to get to altitude and out the door without at least seeing this reminder. I'll post others too when I can at other strategic locations around the DZ and inside the a/c.

Okay, I'll bite: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! (Their level of experience is irrelevant.)

They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

(Note: I'm not a wingsuiter and don't really have an opinion on the proposal.)

I had decided to stop talking in threads about this subject because it had rapidly become as pointless as a Speaker's Corner thread, however I've finally found a comment worthy of the attached image.

Not true. Demonstrably not true. One simple case in point - the one and only wingsuit tailstrike fatality in the US (Steve Harrington, 2009, Elsinore).

Steve was a highly experienced wingsuiter (in excess of a thousand wingsuit jumps) who co-founded a school that taught first flight courses. I learned how to wingsuit from him and another instructor at that school. Steve consistently warned me and many other students about the threat of the tail - in fact he specifically talked to me about the increased risk of tail strikes a year before his death when I started doing a lot of wingsuit videography work (i.e., from a camera step).

He clearly knew proper exit procedure in a wing suit, he was capable of doing it, and knew the importance of doing it every time.

So how did it happen? Complacency. Combine that with a reportedly fast exit speed and a distance run that probably had him slightly nervous and wanting to get max flight fast to get back to the DZ.

Complacency is the biggest killer in skydiving.

Would a USPA rating have prevented Steve's death? I can't see how. He KNEW the issue; he was CAPABLE of closing his wings (unless you're trying to twist the word "CAPABLE" to mean "DID", which is a semantic game that obviously falls apart fast). He knew it had to be done EVERY TIME. He was complacent, though. Would an active and constant series of reminders to avoid the tail have helped? Maybe. If somehow they prevented his complacency.

[Personally, I'm still on the fence about the proposal. There are arguments in favor and arguments against. I will sleep happily at night either way. If Dante is right, at least I'll have the best place to make smores. But as I've consistently said, if we decide to do (or not do) something, let's take that action based on evidence and reason, not hysteria and reactionary behavior.]

Okay, I'll bite: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! (Their level of experience is irrelevant.)

They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

(Note: I'm not a wingsuiter and don't really have an opinion on the proposal.)

I had decided to stop talking in threads about this subject because it had rapidly become as pointless as a Speaker's Corner thread, however I've finally found a comment worthy of the attached image.

Not true. Demonstrably not true. One simple case in point - the one and only wingsuit tailstrike fatality in the US (Steve Harrington, 2009, Elsinore).

Steve was a highly experienced wingsuiter (in excess of a thousand wingsuit jumps) who co-founded a school that taught first flight courses. I learned how to wingsuit from him and another instructor at that school. Steve consistently warned me and many other students about the threat of the tail - in fact he specifically talked to me about the increased risk of tail strikes a year before his death when I started doing a lot of wingsuit videography work (i.e., from a camera step).

He clearly knew proper exit procedure in a wing suit, he was capable of doing it, and knew the importance of doing it every time.

So how did it happen? Complacency. Combine that with a reportedly fast exit speed and a distance run that probably had him slightly nervous and wanting to get max flight fast to get back to the DZ.

Complacency is the biggest killer in skydiving.

Would a USPA rating have prevented Steve's death? I can't see how. He KNEW the issue; he was CAPABLE of closing his wings (unless you're trying to twist the word "CAPABLE" to mean "DID", which is a semantic game that obviously falls apart fast). He knew it had to be done EVERY TIME. He was complacent, though. Would an active and constant series of reminders to avoid the tail have helped? Maybe. If somehow they prevented his complacency.

[Personally, I'm still on the fence about the proposal. There are arguments in favor and arguments against. I will sleep happily at night either way. If Dante is right, at least I'll have the best place to make smores. But as I've consistently said, if we decide to do (or not do) something, let's take that action based on evidence and reason, not hysteria and reactionary behavior.]

IMO 1,2,3 are correct, you just added a #4.

Maybe if there was a standard for that type of wingsuit jump, he would have been successful and still here with us today?

Maybe if there was a standard for that type of wingsuit jump, he would have been successful and still here with us today?

Matt

Hi Matt,

Not sure I follow - a different standard for a high speed exit? Personally, I do the same for high speed exits as I do for regular exits (which is currently found in the SIM, by the way). If there's a difference, it's that I make an extra-special point of not being complacent on a high speed exit. However, if you had described the situation to Steve and asked for advice, I am certain he would have said "keep your wings suit for two seconds out the door". And yet, he didn't. It was complacency, not lack of knowledge.

If you are saying all four of those elements (knowledge of the issue, ability to do it, knowing the need to do it every time, and avoiding complacency) are needed to avoid tail strikes, then yes. Agreed.

However, if you are saying that a USPA rating would have changed what happend to Steve, then I don't follow. What would he have learned in a first jump course that would changed his behavior? (In other words, what do you think he didn't know?) Keep in mind, he had over a thousand wingsuit jumps, so even under the proposal, it would have been a thousand wingsuit jumps after his USPA-rated FJC... To me, claiming that the FJC course would have changed things is much like claiming that by saying "don't turn to close to the ground" in AFF, you're going to solve the problem of people femuring on a swoop. The swoopers are usually hundreds or perhaps thousands of jumps after their AFF...

So, to me, the important part is diagnosis of the problem before we prescribe a cure. I personally like to make my decisions based on data, and at least to me, the data are incomplete. The $64,000 question - are all these tail strikes being caused as a result of lack of knowledge or are they being caused by complacency?

If they are caused by bad training, then tail strikes are a valid reason to support the USPA wingsuit instructor rating proposal. If that's what the data showed, then I'd support the proposal.

If tail strikes are being caused by experienced wingsuiters who were trained and told how to safely exit, but for whatever reason don't (i.e., they are are complacent, perhaps coupled with too large of suit), then I don't see how the USPA wingsuit instructor rating proposal addresses that (except very indirectly). If that's the cause, the rating is not really addressing the problem head on, but only sort of obliquely and indirectly. There are probably much more effective means. If that's what the data showed, I'd probably not support it.

What we are missing in this dialogue is verifiable data, either way. We get lots of anecdotes on both sides of the proposal, with few specifics. For example, of the 11 incidents on the list, who were they? Can we verifiably ask them "hey, were you trained badly or did you just mess up?" Sure, it might be embarrassing, but I'd rather a few people be embarrassed so we can take the right next steps in favor of safety. In short, the answer to that question would really help those of us who don't know whether or not to support this.

Even if this proposal passes, what about the thousands of us who won't be effected by the proposal? (By that, I mean we skydivers who are already wingsuiting.) What initiative is in place to stop tail strikes by us? To me, current wingsuiters are a far greater risk of being the tail strike that causes the insurance companies to cut us off - we are the ones that will get complacent first. Yet I see nothing being done by USPA to address that.

Ya, my point was not so much directed at the problem, as at the question as posed. It seems to be a problem that threatens the discipline, and the solution to eliminate it (yet still allow wingsuiting) is almost certainly education/training/emphasis in one form or another. Maybe various FFCs need to increase the priority, emphasis, coverage, and practice of proper exits, maybe just sticky-note reminders by the door will do, or maybe a combination of those and other strategies (like a publicity campaign to make the issue more prominent in the minds of existing wingsuiters). And maybe also a component of the solution is a stardardized curriculum to ensure that all wingsuiters get proper training with proper emphasis.

My interest in the issue is only as a fellow jumper interested in ensuring there are planes to take me up for my non-wingsuit jumps at a price that does not reflect a risk I have no control over.

You said his points 1 to 3 are " not true" I didn't think they happened to be absolute, and thought you made a good argument for a #4. I am also of a mind that many more points could be added.

If there is a standardized set of "how too's", wouldn't it make the tragedy you wrote about less likely to happen? You mention you do things a particular way, how many other have this "standardization"?

Ah, thanks for your explanation, Matt. I was responding to an absolute statement with an exception. In other words, he said:

Quote:

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! * * * They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

I was saying "No" in absolute terms, because in Steve's case it wasn't any of those three, it was a different issue (complacency).

There's a standard "how to" in the USPA SIM (Section 6-9). It walks through how a FFC should be taught and what should be covered. Could it be updated with input from the best and brightest? Sure.

And maybe given some "teeth" after the update, to help in getting tail strikes reduced and maybe, just maybe appease the Insurance Co's, and avoid the FAA's questions over flying out of the Notam'd Radius.

In short, the answer to that question would really help those of us who don't know whether or not to support this.

In reply to:

Again, I'd like to remind people that the WSI proposal is NOT singularly focused on training to eliminate tail-strikes.

That's only one small (though important) area of a standardized method of training it addresses.

I strongly encourage everyone to review the proposal in it's entirety and not get sidetracked with all the bantering over a single issue before making a choice whether to support it or not.

The proposed WSI standardized curriculum was assembled long before the aircraft insurer sent out the email to it's clients asking for a resolution to the tail-strike hull damage claims they were receiving.

The WSI program definitely addresses instruction in proper exit procedure...along with a multitude of other things that are and sometimes aren't currently being taught.

The program's intention is to monitor who is allowed to teach what to whom...nothing more. The intention is to put everyone involved on the same page, it makes perfect sense to do it earlier rather than later.

Wingsuit is currently and for the foreseeable future, the fastest growing discipline in the sport, if you can see the advantage of insuring uniformity regarding method & content of instruction...consider supporting it.

That is a completely different subject that has been somewhat overlooked in the heat of the other discussions. One similarity is that it is used to support the WSI initiative, and again a straw man that does not need to be addressed in this manner. Again, it is more experienced winsuiters that are likely offenders, and has little to do with basic instruction. To stop it, make a clear policy at each drop zone exactly where the limits on flying are. Involve the pilots to make sure they don't let anybody out too close to the line, and have consequences for violators, ie: first offence, warning, second offence grounding, 10 lashes, or whatever. Problem solved.

...it is more experienced winsuiters that are likely offenders, and has little to do with basic instruction.

In reply to:

But keep in mind that 'more experienced wingsuiters' were less experienced at one time...if the information would have been hammered in from the beginning there probably wouldn't be the issue now.

Certainly what you're proposing has merit in addressing the current situation...but doesn't it make sense to uniformly download that information to everyone coming through now and that will in the future, in the same factual & concise nomenclature?

Piecemeal fixes can get confusing, should we settle on 'just' adding a sticker and another paragraph in a waiver to address the next 4 or 5 things too?

The fact discussions on topics like this are taking place lends me to believe that there are some holes in the current system. Blaming it on complacency and throwing out suggestive reminders is certainly one way of approaching it.

There are IMO other equally effective if not better ways as well.

When I was an instructor I was once reminded~

If the person I taught doesn't 'KNOW' something then I failed.

If they can't 'DO' something then I failed.

If they know something and can do it but don't, then it's THEIR failure.

...it is more experienced winsuiters that are likely offenders, and has little to do with basic instruction.

In reply to:

But keep in mind that 'more experienced wingsuiters' were less experienced at one time...if the information would have been hammered in from the beginning there probably wouldn't be the issue now.

Certainly what you're proposing has merit in addressing the current situation...but doesn't it make sense to uniformly download that information to everyone coming through now and that will in the future, in the same factual & concise nomenclature?

Piecemeal fixes can get confusing, should we settle on 'just' adding a sticker and another paragraph in a waiver to address the next 4 or 5 things too?

The fact discussions on topics like this are taking place lends me to believe that there are some holes in the current system. Blaming it on complacency and throwing out suggestive reminders is certainly one way of approaching it.

There are IMO other equally effective if not better ways as well.

When I was an instructor I was once reminded~

If the person I taught doesn't 'KNOW' something then I failed.

If they can't 'DO' something then I failed.

If they know something and can do it but don't, then it's THEIR failure.

" It appears that the skydiving community can not find a consensus to address our concerns on these hull damage claims due to "wingsuit jumpers".

Wingsuiters can't even agree.

You seem hell bent on creating yet another boondoggle run by the USPA. Are you going to support "Bigway instructor" ratings next?

Some WS'rs are behind this because it will make them money. Some are because they think it will give them legitimacy. Because all the benefits they keep saying this will bring could be brought about by other methods.

Me, I don't WS. What I do know is the USPA is too big and does too much unneeded crap already. Some want to make it a bigger organization... One has to wonder why since the benefits could be gained in other ways.

" It appears that the skydiving community can not find a consensus to address our concerns on these hull damage claims due to "wingsuit jumpers".

Wingsuiters can't even agree.

You seem hell bent on creating yet another boondoggle run by the USPA. Are you going to support "Bigway instructor" ratings next?

Some WS'rs are behind this because it will make them money. Some are because they think it will give them legitimacy. Because all the benefits they keep saying this will bring could be brought about by other methods.

Me, I don't WS. What I do know is the USPA is too big and does too much unneeded crap already. Some want to make it a bigger organization... One has to wonder why since the benefits could be gained in other ways.

I think you need to re-read my post and try really hard not to read betweeen the lines.

I really don't care how the sport addresses the issue of wingsuit tail strikes.

I don't know enough about wingsuitng to offer anything of value other than to say I know insurance and how that industry works.

I now it's possible that someone could be crying wolf to advance their own agenda but if it is true that the company/companies that insure our jump planes get fed up with what ever they perceive to be an unecessary high risk then we will all pay the price.

I don't want USPA to be more involved in rulemaking than they already are which is why I hope the wingsuit community gets this figured out on their own.

I think if you read my original post you will see it says just that. It does not mention or elude to USPA in any way.

Depending on winds aloft, direction, speed, traffic, and distance, sometimes getting out right ON the line is critical.

I would prefer to not land off when possible.

Well, I said I'd answer you so I will. Your statement is absurd because there is no instance that it is critical to exiting right on the line in order to not land out. It is critical to not exit over the line if you are not allowed beyond a certain distance from the DZ, but you can exit as close as you want, avoid traffic, and land on the DZ no matter what the wind is doing. Your statement makes more sense for those without a wingsuit. Experienced wingsuiters can fly themselves to a good deployment point no matter how close to the DZ they exit. So I stand by my original post on this subject. Make people aware of limits. Instruct pilots to not let anybody out beyond those limits. No more wingies flying around where they're not supposed to. Very little to do with wingsuit instruction for beginners.

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

In the absence of such a framework, we are forced to work off anecdotal evidence. While it is not ideal, implementing a process improvement can't raise the rate. It may be a waste of resource or ineffective, but surely no-one can argue against better educated jumpers?

Before you repeat the line about swooper, freefly etc, I fully support the route the.USPA has taken on canopy courses and hope to see more work in the future.

I just read an interesting safety bulletin in parachutist where a premature deployment about ripped off the elevator of a 182. How does that play into all of this? It was far worse damage than any of the photos I have seen of a Wingsuit tail hit.

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

If I understand correctly the tail strike data is from the insurance claims? Surely all they care about is the cost of the.damage, not the root cause?

John, the problem with your stance is that the USPA does not have compulsory or comprehensive incident reporting. Even if we could magically get all incident captured from now on, it would take 2-10 years to gather statistically useful data.

.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

If I understand correctly the tail strike data is from the insurance claims? Surely all they care about is the cost of the.damage, not the root cause?

Actually they care about Cost, Cause & Frequency...

That data in part, is how premium costs are determined. Loads more stuff goes into the equation of course , but those are the big three.

It's why a 55 year old male living in the boonies pays considerably less for insurance on his Volvo than does a 20 year old driving a Camaro living in Ventura.

Of course what EVER data the insurance company's actuary experts compile and analyse they 'guess' at the unknown entity.

They have no way of getting an actual statistical representation regarding the cost, cause & frequency of accidents/incidents that are not reported.

The folks determining insurance coverage premiums would love to have hard reference data as to every what, when, where, why & how 'much' ~ whether a claim was made or not.

The folks payin' those premiums sometimes simply repair or replace 'off the books' in order to stay off the radar, because in certain circumstance it's more cost effective to do so in the long run.

But hey, I'm sure that never happens with aircraft owners...but even if it did, they would no doubt be eager to let the skydiving community know all about it, so that we could discuss it on the world wide web.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.

A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit." This is not accurate. A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer." It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred. Repair cost was nearly 100K$.

We need a common curriculum IMO. I will vote accordingly. We do have a common curriculum-it's in the SIM.

Second thought to that....it's been mentioned that no one reads the SIM. New AFF students are required to buy USPA membership, but not the SIM that they're supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....

>New AFF students are required to buy USPA membership, but not the SIM that they're >supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....

?? The SIM is free to download. Do you suggest that by making it cost $$ and then requiring new students to buy it, it will be read more often?

Not sure, but I think he was just suggesting that it be made a requirement for students to have, instead of just a 'suggestion' that they purchase it or download it. As it is, it's similar to going to class at school, and being able to buy or download the book "if you want to."

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.

A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit." This is not accurate. A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer." It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred. Repair cost was nearly 100K$.

While I understand your reasoning behind confidentiality agreements, Spot...I'm sure you can understand that it opens the door to the perception that the information you're relaying is hearsay. (Not suggesting that it is...but as I'm sure you know - and as anyone with a scientific of legal background knows - it's important to be able to verify the facts of claims.)

Again, not saying you're doing this, but I could easily come up with a list of false incidents where a deployment in the door nearly took down a plane, put them in a spreadsheet with non-identifying details, and talk about the rise of closing loop-related incidents over the past year.

While I know you and don't think that you're doing that, I'm sure you can understand why some people would question why you're not forthcoming with this information, if it's so important. If you need to maintain that confidentiality for the sake of protecting DZO's, or protecting your ability to jump at certain DZ's, I understand...but you should probably accept that doing so means not everyone is going to take you at your word, without some hard facts to back it up.

---

That being said, I think where the misconception about the "foot hitting the door on exit" comes from this Wingsuit Tailstrikes list that you posted previously. Line 8 lists an incident in which someone exited a Caravan flying a Stealth2: "Bad Exit opened full in doorframe. Hit back of doorframe with ankle." The injury was a broken ankle. There was no damage to the aircraft.

At first glance, that reads to me (and obviously, a lot of other people) like someone hit the doorframe and broke their ankle.

---

Back to my previous point, directly above that entry, there's also an incident that was from a "Dornier or Caravan," for which the injuries are uncertain, which reads a lot less like a verified incident and more like a story told by someone who watched a video on Youtube. If it was verified, wouldn't the type of aircraft and the injuries be known? What does "verified" mean, anyway?

I know it sounds like I may be drawing conclusions here - I'm not. But I am questioning (it's what I do - I've been burned by rumor mills and the telephone game before). And I think if you're leading this charge, you would do well to try and look at it from the other perspective, and question it as well. It will help you make a more compelling argument, without leaving things like this open to interpretation.

Because until I have something to back it up, all I can do is question it. I can't draw a conclusion either way (as much as I'd like to).

---

tl;dr - Human communication is flawed. And when only one person has access to the primary sources, we all potentially set ourselves up to be the victims of omission...or of flawed communication.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Quote:

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."

Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor."

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Quote:

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."

Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor." That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.

That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.

Sparky

Reach ya maybe, in a court of law you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. I am not trying to advocate that necessarily.

Let's look at it this way. If I am using a CI (confidential informant) to make drug buys off of a dealer. Then I in turn apply for a warrant to a judge. That warrant needs to be based off of probable cause. In court that CI WILL be brought to light. There is no way around it. A defendant has a right to face his accusers. That is why it is important to know the background of your CI's. If they have character issues or CH (criminal history) they will be flamed by the defense and worthless. Entire cases have been lost off of this in the past.

DSE is in this example applying for the warrant. WE are the judges (voting memebers) You can bet your ass the judge wants to know the CI's character and CH before signing that warrant.

I want the same.

He has stated anonymous examples of tailstrikes and known WS schools teaching bad exit techniques, but is not making the facts known. He won't name them. Is his assumptions based off of probable cause? I don't know, because he won't allow us to know.

I am not signing yet.

I personally think he may have got the diagnosis wrong. Sometimes good cops make honest fuckups. DSE is probably a good cop, with good intentions, but lets dot the I's and cross the T's here.

SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.

Quote:

Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."

Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor." That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.

Sparky If it were just a rant on the internet I would agree with you.

HOWEVER, this (absence of) evidence is being used to try to change the way our national organization works and affect the way USPA members vote.

The proposal is a wholistic approach to a number of issues that face DZO's, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012.

It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion. Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012. The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.

The proposal is a wholistic holistic approach to a number of issues that face DZO's DZOs, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012.

So why wasn't it urgent before that? You had the data; why didn't you act proactively and focus on removing a clear and present danger to the sport instead of using it disingenuously to impose an advanced training requirement that is outside USPA's scope and none of its business?

In reply to:

It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion.

Unfortunate? It's critical! In fact, it's the only thing that matters.

In reply to:

Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012.

I'm sure Mr Norris and the insurance companies will be happy to hear that the chief pusher of USPA wingsuit regulation thinks there is such a thing as "reasonably minimal" tailstrikes.

In reply to:

The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.

Off-topic.

This thread is about what we can do as individuals and as a community to reduce tailstrikes now, not lament how that discussion distracts from pushing forward your agenda to involve USPA in something that is none of its business.